Let me make my original point another way. You lying about your relationship makes me question your integrity. It is not that we simply have a difference of opinion. You have been deceptive. What was the point of your deception? You should be able to understand and address my point and my apprehensions as a member of the community.

Not sure I understand where my brother outright lied?

You purpose was not clear and it still is not. You little sister solicited opinions. Presumably if she wanted yours, she could have called, emailed or talked face to face, whatever your situation may be. Your input was redundant, unnecessary. So what was the point of broadcasting it? [/quote]

Actually his opinion and answers, and the way that you and others replied to them helped, it was not reduntant to me or unnecessary. Broadcasting,?? well he cant PM you can he?? he can share his replies just like any other, and he knows the situation, so he can relate to me.Sorry trying to do another quote and it screwed up, Ill figure this quoting thing out one day, lol!

« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 05:10:25 PM by Not on the fence »

Logged

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion"Steven Weinberg

If you don't want "arrogant arm-chair expert" advice, then don't ask the question of amateurs in the first place. If you want professional advice, spend the money and go to a shrink. You have no grounds for complaint.

This is a forum to ask questions, discuss, and debate, is it not?

It is. You asked a question, which is fine. You got some answers, also fine. Then star stuff began with the nonsense - dodging questions, mischaracterizing my position repeatedly, being generally difficult. My post that you quote above was a response to your brother's comment here:

But even if I didn't know her, I would not be doling out the arrogant arm-chair "expert" advice that you so easily and callously dish out, knowing diddly squat about the people involved. What does it cost you to suggest dropping a bomb in people's lives? Nothing.

His points seem to be:1. we didn't know "diddly squat" about your situation 2. we don't know you. 3. we were merely "arrogant arm-chair experts", which is to say, not experts or even remotely knowledgable4. we advocated "dropping bombs"5. we should not dole out advice.

If you sum that up, it equals STFU. He was saying we should not have answered. That is not debate. That is not discussion. That is your brother trying to shut down discussion. Rather than discuss or debate the points on their merits, he is attacking the people who made them. It is an ad hominem attack. We are "arrogant arm-chair experts", therefore, our points are invalid. It is a logical fallacy that he recognizes and calls out when theists use it. Unfortunately he is too emotionally involved in this discussion to recognize when he is doing it, let alone to refrain from using it.

It would be a good exercise for you to reread my conversation with him. It will be to practice using reason over emotion. Look for all the places where he dodges the point, accuses me of saying things I did not say and generally behaves like an irrational tool. Then explain it to him. It will help you prepare for the day when you are ready to have your atheist discussion with your other arrogant siblings who treat you poorly.

It was a lie of omission. It took him until the 4th page to reveal that you were siblings. Why? What was the big secret? That puts a very different perspective on his role in the "conversation". He seemed to want to argue as though he had nothing at stake, when really he did. Why would he do that?

Maybe it's no big deal. Maybe I am overreacting. But it strikes me as something he could and should have been up front about. Combine that with the way he rather dishonorably handled himself, it makes me wonder what he was up to, what his hidden agenda was.

he can share his replies just like any other, and he knows the situation, so he can relate to me.

But that was not what he was doing. He was trying shut down everyone who disagreed with him. My point was, why was that necessary and why do it here? You asked for advice and he seemed to want to control the advice, to limit the discussion. He only wanted his advice to be advanced. For my part, I really don't care what you do. You asked. I answered. The rest is up to you.

Some more advice - getting advice from disinterested strangers is usually best. They can see things more clearly because they do not have the same bonds and emotional ties. They do not have a vested interest either way.

IN my experience, the people closest to you actively try to prevent you from changing, even for the better. They have an image, a model of you formed in their minds. And any drastic change to that model makes them uncomfortable. Example - your family having a hard time accepting that you are an atheist. It does not fit with how they think of you. It scares them because they start to wonder who else they are wrong about and in what ways?

On the other hand, I have found that strangers are almost always willing to help another person acheive their goals if they know them. This is a situation I have actually been in. I met someone new and we were talking about careers. I expressed a desire to do something different. She came up with 10 things I should do right away to pursue that goal. My friends and family came up with 10 reasons why I shouldn't. It is not that they don't care about me or want me to fail. It is just difficult for them to cope with change even in other people.

I'm not saying SS is working against you. I am sure his intentions are mostly good. I am saying, you should be very skeptical of his advice and be aware of his motives. As Screwtape Sr says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If you sum that up, it equals STFU. He was saying we should not have answered. That is not debate. That is not discussion. That is your brother trying to shut down discussion. Rather than discuss or debate the points on their merits, he is attacking the people who made them.

screwtape, you really need to let this go; you're getting way bent out of shape on this and fabricating & inflating something that only exists in your mind.

You claim that I said "we should not have answered" and "tried to shut down discussion". This is rediculous and shows that your are over-reacting. All I did was disagree with the idea of coming out with one's atheism to elderly, frail, unarmed parents! As I understand it, that's what a forum is about!

You have engaged in flagrant use of fallacies and attempts to shut down discussion in your exchanges with screwtape, and he's been pretty damn patient about it, while you are now lying in your attempt to hand-wave it away.

To be clear, the most recent case is of the following structure:

1. Screwtape provides evidence for X.2. You respond to him in a way that ignores his evidence for X, and calls X ridiculous.

Is that intellectually honest behaviour? Would you accept it from a theist?

You have engaged in flagrant use of fallacies and attempts to shut down discussion in your exchanges with screwtape, and he's been pretty damn patient about it, while you are now lying in your attempt to hand-wave it away.

Screwtape provided evidence from your own quotes. Whether or not you choose to be honest about that is strictly up to you, but don't expect the fact that you're an atheist to give you some sort of immunity from irrationality and intellectual dishonesty, or from being called on such behaviour.

you're getting way bent out of shape on this and fabricating & inflating something that only exists in your mind.

I'm not bent out of shape. When I get bent out of shape I react like you did in the quote at the top. I've not resorted to that, so I'd say I've still got it together.

And if the idea that you have been acting irrationally, dodging, and essentially told L6 and anyone who agrees with him to not offer our opinions only exists in my mind, then why does Az seem to agree with me? Why does he see it and you do not? He's not me. I have not hypnotized him. He is not under my control[1].

You claim that I said "we should not have answered" and "tried to shut down discussion". This is rediculous and shows that your are over-reacting.

I laid it all out for your sister using your very words. Go back and read that post. It seems pretty obvious to me. I'd bet it is obvious to Az too. And probably NotF. It probably seems invisible to you because that is your brain trying to justify a completely emotional decision and the resulting fallout from it.

Look, I know admitting you are wrong is difficult. But it is a strength, not a weakness. It is something to be proud of, not shameful. At some point in your life you admitted you were wrong about god. And that probably felt good. This should be easier to do. I am not going to beat my chest and do a celebratory dance. I do not want to gloat or humiliate you. I want you to see where you have been acting in a way you would condemn if a theist did it.

All I did was disagree with the idea of coming out with one's atheism to elderly, frail, unarmed parents!

That is not what you did, never mind that that was not exactly my argument in the first place. You accused me of a whole host of things I did not say. You employed ad hominem attacks. And you suggested we should not offer our opinions. The quotes are there. If you cannot see it, then you have a problem.

Stop with the red herrings and strawman arguments already. Your mind is squirming to get out of the situation because somewhere it recongnizes the truth. Deal with the real situation. Don't be confused. This is not about whether your opinion[2] is right or wrong. You have dumped a boatload of nonsense in this thread. Recognize that. Acknowledge that. This is important. Believe it or not, I am doing you a favor.

You all are grown ups. Either work it out here in the Pit or go on to another thread. Show the community an example of reaching an understanding, or move on. We don't need to babysit supposedly rational thinkers.

I just went back and re-read every post I made on this thread. I suggest you do the same, and then please provide me with this "evidence" you assert that I:

- Tried to "shut down" the conversation- Attacked people.- Said that you "should not have answered"- Dodged points- Had a "hidden agenda"- Lied about relationship with sister (and don't give me that "lie by ommission" BS, I eventually felt forced to drop the anonimity, and that's it. Your preference to retroactively apply wrong intent is just rediculous).

I encourage you two to go back and read my posts from the start, but first remove the guilt filters that you seem to be wearing.

"I'm sorry, but you said something that made me angry" says "I'm not really sorry, because I was totally justified." That may not be what you meant. But that is what it says.

i disagree. in this case, it means SS is sorry for what he said and justifies why he said itin the first case you presented it's just pointing out a flaw in a person you love so they can improve itin the second example it's explaining why the person said/did something

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

If someone is genuinely sorry for doing X, then what motive does that person have to justify having done X?

If one believes that he or she is justified in doing X, then it makes no sense to be sorry for having done X. It might make sense to be sorry for some side-effect of X, but if X was actually justified in that person's mind, then that person is not sorry.

If someone is genuinely sorry for doing X, then what motive does that person have to justify having done X?

If one believes that he or she is justified in doing X, then it makes no sense to be sorry for having done X. It might make sense to be sorry for some side-effect of X, but if X was actually justified in that person's mind, then that person is not sorry.

when i got pissed at one of my best friends, after i calmed down and apologized i explained why i got angry so he/she wouldn't get angry at me for thinking i got angry at him/her for no reasoneven though it was justified, i explained myself so he/she wouldnt think it was completely unjustified and i was sorry for having reacted that way

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

If your reaction was justified, then why were you sorry for having reacted that way? That's not rational.

no matter the justification, a bad reaction is a bad reaction. i should've stayed calm and i shouldn't have gotten pissed at my friendalso, although something may seem justified to me, for my friend it might not have been

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Same post. I laid out what an “Ad hominem attack” was and showed how you did it. Read this post and tell me how you go from it to accusing me of “carpet bombing”, “dropping bombs”, “throwing hand grenades pell mell”, and “drubbing” the elderly. I know how you got there. I want to see if you have a clue.

I even corrected you at one point An honest person might have said “oh screwtape, you’re right. I’m sorry about that. I misunderstood what you said.” Because what I said there is not that different from what you said here.

But instead you disregarded that and continued on with the straw man arguments and mischaracterization. If a xian came in here and did that, you would call him a liar. I refrained from that charge until you admitted your family relationship.

Same post as the first. Your response was “You don’t know shit, and if I were you I would not be giving out advice”. That = STFU. Or did you mean something else by calling it “arm-chair expert advice”?

Take your pick. There are about half a dozen questions I asked that have been left unanswered. I am not going to sort them out for you. You are fortunate I have not asked that you be put in the ER for dodging questions.

- Lied about relationship with sister (and don't give me that "lie by ommission" BS, I eventually felt forced to drop the anonimity, and that's it. Your preference to retroactively apply wrong intent is just rediculous).

“ridiculous”.

Why is a lie by omission BS? Because it makes you feel better about doing it? I am not the only one who said that to you. Norman Peopled, Azdgari, etc. You started off this thread pretending you were something you were not. That is a lie. Maybe it was not meant maliciously. Maybe it was not to cover an ulterior motive. Maybe it was not harmful. Maybe it was. But either way, it was a lie nevertheless.

This post is consistent with your failures in this thread. You continue to react emotionally. You continue to inaccurately represent me – whether through hasty/ poor reading, emotional misinterpretation or dishonesty I do not know. And you continue to refuse to look in the mirror or take responsibility for anything.

when i got pissed at one of my best friends, after i calmed down and apologized i explained why i got angry so he/she wouldn't get angry at me for thinking i got angry at him/her for no reasoneven though it was justified, i explained myself so he/she wouldnt think it was completely unjustified and i was sorry for having reacted that way

bold mineI understand that. I left room for the possibility that SS did not mean it to sound like a non-apology. But it still sounds like a non-apology.

And there is a way to say it that does not sound like a retraction of the apology. When you say "But" it negates what came before it. If you can use "and" it can make a big difference. In the example I gave, you could say "I love you and you have big hips." you did that above where I bolded it. That comes off better than "I'm sorry but I had good reason to be a jerk"

Or you can use "but" and reverse the order "you have big hips, but I love you." "I was upset for this reason, but I am sorry for it" See the difference?

And there is a way to say it that does not sound like a retraction of the apology. When you say "But" it negates what came before it. If you can use "and" it can make a big difference. In the example I gave, you could say "I love you and you have big hips." you did that above where I bolded it. That comes off better than "I'm sorry but I had good reason to be a jerk"

i disagree with the "but" negating what comes before it. i've never once heard someone say that (before now anyway) but i can see how you could interpret it as suchi agree with the second part

I hate these questions... why should the non-believer have to put themselves over a barrel? Why is it always the atheist that is forced to sit in silence while the others feel the freedom of expression? I say that if they are a true family they will accept your beliefs and they will allow, nay... want your voice to be heard. If they can't get over a disagreement for your sake, why should you be forced to lie for theirs?

Logged

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

It will help you prepare for the day when you are ready to have your atheist discussion with your other arrogant siblings who treat you poorly.

Ok first off what does SFTU mean?? :shrugand I think that statements like this and saying that our family are "jerks" would put anyones back up, maybe if you did not say these things, then maybe it would have not got so emotional?Now this thread has gotten way off track, can we please just agree that we disagree.I think that I know my brothers intentions, and I know that he does not have ulterior motives, or that he has lied in anyway.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2010, 02:48:57 PM by Not on the fence »

Logged

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion"Steven Weinberg

I hate these questions... why should the non-believer have to put themselves over a barrel? Why is it always the atheist that is forced to sit in silence while the others feel the freedom of expression? I say that if they are a true family they will accept your beliefs and they will allow, nay... want your voice to be heard. If they can't get over a disagreement for your sake, why should you be forced to lie for theirs?

To understand the situation maybe you can have a listen to this video, this is quite similar to my situation. When you have parents and siblings who are dilusional, and just do not have the brain capacity to understand, things become quite difficult to try and explain.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXA7GA9yntc[/youtube]

« Last Edit: March 30, 2010, 02:49:28 PM by Not on the fence »

Logged

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion"Steven Weinberg